Shutdown Watch - 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
Logical_Mongoose said:

That's the Republican Study Committee's 2024 budget proposal that was released in mid-June. Items LITERALLY include getting rid of thousands of federal employees, lowering pay and benefits, and decimating the retirement system. The RSC is made up of 156 members of Congress and is the largest ideological caucus in Congress.

You've seen my posts on here; you absolutely know I don't simp for the Democrats. But you can't claim ignorance that the Republican "rich men north of Richmond" absolutely want to butt-fuck government employees without our consent: it's been a part of their party platform for 40 years and they haven't been shy about it.
Click to expand...
In an effort to try to initiate decent discussion and ignore the reddit echo chamber, I find these two sections to be extremely concerning, especially given the cost of medication for myself being north of 70k per month:

"Reform Federal Employee Pension Plans - Federal employees hired since 1984 are entitled to a two-part retirement program, including the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) defined benefit plan and a 401k-style plan with up to a 5 percent government matching contribution. This budget recommends a number of common-sense reforms to bring federal employee retirement costs in line with the private sector. This includes: requiring new federal workers to be enrolled in the defined contribution TSP system rather than the defined benefit FERS pension system - which would give workers needed control over their retirement savings, ensure solvency for federal pensions and save taxpayers more than $235 billion over 10 years;[484] computing a retiree’s benefit based on their highest five, and not three, years of earnings; increasing the share of employee contributions to FERS over time; reducing or eliminating the COLA for FERS and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS); eliminating the Special Retirement Supplement (SRS), which provides additional benefits for retirees younger than 62 but who had a long federal work history; and reforming the interest rate provided by the G Fund in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) to more accurately reflect the yield on a short-term T-bill rate. "

"Federal Employee Health Care - The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) provides health insurance coverage for federal employees and their dependents. The portion of these costs covered by the taxpayer does not change with the higher-priced coverage options. As such, federal employees have the incentive to choose the more expensive plans on the taxpayer’s dime. The RSC Budget would transition to a premium support system for the FEHBP. The government would offer a standard federal contribution towards the purchase of health insurance and employees would be responsible for paying the rest. This option would encourage employees to purchase plans with the appropriate amount of coverage that fits their needs. The government should also reduce its contributions to federal workers’ premiums to align with the private sector more closely. The RSC Budget would also eliminate FEHB retirement benefits for new hires. As noted by the Heritage Foundation, federal employees are able to participate in the FEHB plan even after retirement while having large parts of the cost subsidized by taxpayers.[485] This is a benefit unavailable to virtually all private sector workers. "
 
GulfCharlie said:
In an effort to try to initiate decent discussion and ignore the reddit echo chamber, I find these two sections to be extremely concerning, especially given the cost of medication for myself being north of 70k per month:

"Reform Federal Employee Pension Plans - Federal employees hired since 1984 are entitled to a two-part retirement program, including the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) defined benefit plan and a 401k-style plan with up to a 5 percent government matching contribution. This budget recommends a number of common-sense reforms to bring federal employee retirement costs in line with the private sector. This includes: requiring new federal workers to be enrolled in the defined contribution TSP system rather than the defined benefit FERS pension system - which would give workers needed control over their retirement savings, ensure solvency for federal pensions and save taxpayers more than $235 billion over 10 years;[484] computing a retiree’s benefit based on their highest five, and not three, years of earnings; increasing the share of employee contributions to FERS over time; reducing or eliminating the COLA for FERS and the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS); eliminating the Special Retirement Supplement (SRS), which provides additional benefits for retirees younger than 62 but who had a long federal work history; and reforming the interest rate provided by the G Fund in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) to more accurately reflect the yield on a short-term T-bill rate. "

"Federal Employee Health Care - The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) provides health insurance coverage for federal employees and their dependents. The portion of these costs covered by the taxpayer does not change with the higher-priced coverage options. As such, federal employees have the incentive to choose the more expensive plans on the taxpayer’s dime. The RSC Budget would transition to a premium support system for the FEHBP. The government would offer a standard federal contribution towards the purchase of health insurance and employees would be responsible for paying the rest. This option would encourage employees to purchase plans with the appropriate amount of coverage that fits their needs. The government should also reduce its contributions to federal workers’ premiums to align with the private sector more closely. The RSC Budget would also eliminate FEHB retirement benefits for new hires. As noted by the Heritage Foundation, federal employees are able to participate in the FEHB plan even after retirement while having large parts of the cost subsidized by taxpayers.[485] This is a benefit unavailable to virtually all private sector workers. "
Click to expand...

So the typical gutting of the federal government by Republicans. Then when things cant get done with the incredibly low budget they can complain a few years later and say the government isn't effective so they attempt to privatize it for their buddies.
 
rhombus said:
Tell your supe he’s an idiot

View attachment 8756
Click to expand...
I believe the point of contention for excepted employees (ATC, police, etc.) will be the ability to take and receive pay for furlough time. As the above reads to me, excepted employees will not be in a furlough status and won't be entitled to receive retroactive wages for any time off marked as furlough. So, if I am interpreting it correctly, you can take leave during the shutdown but when the shutdown ends and the retroactive pay is processed it will be deducted from your leave balance.
 
Logical_Mongoose said:
I believe the point of contention for excepted employees (ATC, police, etc.) will be the ability to take and receive pay for furlough time. As the above reads to me, excepted employees will not be in a furlough status and won't be entitled to receive retroactive wages for any time off marked as furlough. So, if I am interpreting it correctly, you can take leave during the shutdown but when the shutdown ends and the retroactive pay is processed it will be deducted from your leave balance.
Click to expand...
That’s how I read it. If you’re deemed essential it’s mostly status quo with the exception you might not get paid for a bit if the shutdown drags on
 
rhombus said:
That’s how I read it. If you’re deemed essential it’s mostly status quo with the exception you might not get paid for a bit if the shutdown drags on
Click to expand...
All the more reason for some of you heroes to have a party in a confined space with poor ventilation and/or undercooked pizza, maybe invite some capitol police and TSA agents to it too...

Believe Angels In The Outfield GIF
whoops GIF
 
Any guesses on what would happen if a CpC were to temporary lose their medical just prior to the deadline? And get assigned administrative or training duties? Would they likely get furloughed and paid without being charged leave?
 
Kramer said:
Any guesses on what would happen if a CpC were to temporary lose their medical just prior to the deadline? And get assigned administrative or training duties? Would they likely get furloughed and paid without being charged leave?
Click to expand...
Yes. Most likely. All the trainees that don’t have qual would get sent home. The lab and classes would shut down.
 
Logical_Mongoose said:
I believe the point of contention for excepted employees (ATC, police, etc.) will be the ability to take and receive pay for furlough time. As the above reads to me, excepted employees will not be in a furlough status and won't be entitled to receive retroactive wages for any time off marked as furlough. So, if I am interpreting it correctly, you can take leave during the shutdown but when the shutdown ends and the retroactive pay is processed it will be deducted from your leave balance.
Click to expand...
OPM disagrees. See this document: OPM Guidance for Shutdown Furloughs

Paragraph F.2.A. specifically addresses excepted employees and leave with OPM acknowledging this: "We expect that excepted employees generally will not choose to use paid leave under 31 U.S.C. 1341(c)(3) because 31 U.S.C. 1341(c)(2) provides retroactive pay for furlough periods without charge to leave."
 
mspmn said:
OPM disagrees. See this document: OPM Guidance for Shutdown Furloughs

Paragraph F.2.A. specifically addresses excepted employees and leave with OPM acknowledging this: "We expect that excepted employees generally will not choose to use paid leave under 31 U.S.C. 1341(c)(3) because 31 U.S.C. 1341(c)(2) provides retroactive pay for furlough periods without charge to leave."
Click to expand...
The only potential issue/question with that is if furlough leave can then be denied.

If a controller called off sick and asked to be on furlough status for it, could the supe/FAA say that furlough leave isn't approved for sick leave?

If you have annual leave on the schedule you should be okay to be furlough status for it, but calling off sick for a shift might still count against your sick leave balance if management wants to be assholes about it and wait for grievances to roll in.

I don't agree with the above, I'm just merely trying to steel-man the other side of it as a worst-case scenario.

But, more importantly: RaIsEwHeN and maybe civil servant Project Mayhem?

fight club norton GIF
fight club chant GIF
shaking fight club GIF
 
Logical_Mongoose said:
The only potential issue/question with that is if furlough leave can then be denied.

If a controller called off sick and asked to be on furlough status for it, could the supe/FAA say that furlough leave isn't approved for sick leave?

If you have annual leave on the schedule you should be okay to be furlough status for it, but calling off sick for a shift might still count against your sick leave balance if management wants to be assholes about it and wait for grievances to roll in.

I don't agree with the above, I'm just merely trying to steel-man the other side of it as a worst-case scenario.

But, more importantly: RaIsEwHeN and maybe civil servant Project Mayhem?

fight club norton GIF
fight club chant GIF
shaking fight club GIF
Click to expand...
Well that's the point. We don't know if the secret union faa meeting agreed annual will be allowed to be changed to furlough but sick remains as is.

We won't know until whatever. Unfortunately I don't think anyone is gonna waste a lawsuit for 2 weeks of leave and have a judge overturn it.

That being said they wouldn't be able to force you to use sick if you were medically dqd. Unless, once again they say we'll there's no admin duties available.

I imagine it was agreed that we'll just keep working like normal with normal leave procedures thanks to collaboration
 
doodii said:
I gave correct information. Go back to your mother’s basement.
Click to expand...
You gave information that contradicts or insinuates that they would do something different than what they have the past decade. I'll go to your mom's basement I guess?
 
Guys republicans have to waste time impeaching Biden even tho they already admitted they don’t have shit on him instead of working to fund your paychecks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom